So what happened? Sam Raimi,
the demented genius behind such delirious gems as the EVIL
DEAD trilogy and DARKMAN, now says he never really
had his heart in it? What gives? In a recent ENTERTAINMENT
WEEKLY interview promoting his new film FOR LOVE OF THE
GAME, Raimi goes so far as to say, "I'm proud of those
movies and ashamed of them at the same time."

For those who've been tracking
Raimi's public statements over the past two years, this is no
revelation. In an interview with Rebecca Mead in the November
23, 1998 issue of THE NEW YORKER -- in connection with
his then-upcoming A SIMPLE PLAN -- Raimi acknowledged that
he got into horror not out of any love for the genre ("I
didn't really like horror films -- they frightened me" was
one of his more eyebrow-raising remarks) but because of the commercial
potential and the opportunity to learn firsthand what made scary
movies tick. In retrospect, it now appears, he has always felt
this way and let it be known in small ways throughout his career.
Raimi found himself talking primarily to horror-movie magazines
like FANGORIA whenever one of his genre movies came out,
so of course he wasn't going to slam the genre. But even back
in 1987, on the eve of EVIL DEAD 2, he told a FANGORIA
interviewer, "I knew that if I made a horror picture, I could
get the money and make a movie."

Raimi remains cordial about
horror; he still respects it as a medium in which to do wild and
crazy things. But apparently he's grown up now, and he doesn't
do wild and crazy any more. Can it be that Raimi is the Steve
Martin of horror? Martin, of course, was revered for his surreal
stand-up act before he retired from the stage; now he writes serious
plays and comic essays for THE NEW YORKER. Perhaps nobody
can be expected to remain wild and crazy forever, and Raimi did
expend an awful lot of energy between 1982 and 1995 (when THE
QUICK AND THE DEAD, Raimi's last real camera-rocketry movie,
came out). However, he doesn't seem to realize that when he dismisses
his EVIL DEAD movies, those of us who have loved them over
the years may feel that he's dismissing us as well.

At the heart of all this is
the continuing disrespect for horror movies as a valid genre.
It's fine with me if Raimi wants to stretch and try new things
that don't involve chainsaws and airborne eyeballs, but his EVIL
DEAD movies are surreal works of art, and he has nothing
to be ashamed of or apologize for. It's as if he's in some bad
'80s teen movie where he's the guy from the wrong side of the
tracks who gets ridiculed by the rich kids before finally winning
the heart of the rich girl. Well, Hollywood may be the rich girl,
and some mainstream movie critics may be the rich kids looking
down their noses at horror, but horror is not the wrong side of
the tracks. Yes, nine out of ten horror movies suck, but you can
say that about films in any genre, and I'd rather sit through
a horror movie that sucks than a sensitive Hollywood drama that
sucks (like, say, THE OTHER SISTER).

I can understand Raimi's fear
of being pigeonholed: Some directors whose best-known movie happens
to be a horror movie are never allowed to leave the genre -- like
Tobe Hooper, whose sole excursions away from horror have been
horror's slightly more reputable sister, science fiction; or Wes
Craven, who is only now breaking out of the genre box with the
upcoming MUSIC OF THE HEART. Yet other successful directors
in the genre have managed to go back and forth. John Carpenter
will go to his grave as "John (HALLOWEEN) Carpenter,"
but probably only a third of his total output falls into the horror
category. David Cronenberg's past splatterfests didn't dissuade
anyone from giving him the money to make DEAD RINGERS or
M. BUTTERFLY or CRASH.

And Peter Jackson is probably
the best example of an energetic director who can move outside
horror while still retaining his edge: HEAVENLY CREATURES
is a perfectly serious drama, yet it's also as wild and crazy
stylistically as DEAD ALIVE or BAD TASTE, and New
Line apparently has enough faith in him to give him $200 million
to make LORD OF THE RINGS. Jackson shows that you don't
have to make watered-down Hollywood product in order to stretch
your legs.

So, is Sam Raimi done with horror?
Back in 1987, he said, "I'm very happy with any good script,
whether it's a love story, drama, anything." A fine sentiment,
and I don't think anyone who respects Raimi's work wants to see
him half-heartedly doing EVIL DEAD movies for the rest
of his life. He's been there and done that. What's upsetting about
Raimi's case is that his last two mainstream movies, A SIMPLE
PLAN and FOR LOVE OF THE GAME, so completely submerge
everything we loved about his work. Thematically and stylistically,
they are utterly unrecognizable as Sam Raimi films. That's especially
saddening because his earlier movies are so immediately, recognizably
his. It's as if he thought he had to cancel out his own
personality to make it in Hollywood.

And maybe he's not wrong --
that's the most chilling part. Raimi saw that there was no future
in Hollywood making wingnut movies like ARMY OF DARKNESS,
and he wanted to continue to make movies, so he took the necessary
step. He must have figured that Hollywood would squelch his originality
anyway, so he decided to squelch it himself before they got the
chance.